The Madras High Court discharged a father who was accused of sexually assaulting his 14-year-old minor daughter.

The Court was deciding Revisions preferred by the accused father against the Judgments of the Sessions Court by which he was convicted.

A Single Bench of Justice N. Seshasayee remarked, “… the court may not react the way the social sentiments work. The society and its passion driven arm in the social media may instantly react and deliver its views, but the criminal jurisprudence understands an accusation only as an accusation, no matter what its contents are. Court therefore, cannot react. Its job is to stay neutral and not to take sides and kick the ball with the litigants, to draw an analogy from football, or be a by-runner for the prosecution for the latter to score its runs, if one prefers cricket to football. Dispassion and neutrality are Court's virtues.”

The Bench added that the Court’s role is limited to ascertaining whether an accusation is established through admissible and relevant evidence which the prosecution has presented before it on the thumb-rule of 'ordinary course of human conduct'.

Senior Advocate A. Ramesh appeared for the Petitioner while Government Advocate C.E. Pratap appeared for the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

As per the prosecution case, the Complainant (accused’s wife) along with the Petitioner/accused and her two children which included the victim, were living in a two-bedroom apartment. On room was occupied by them while the other was occupied by the accused’s brother and his wife. The accused’s parents used to sleep in the hall. The accused had the habit of sleeping very late in the night as he was addicted to watching television for long hours. When the accused came to sleep in his bedroom, he would require both his children to go to the hall and sleep. Of late, when the accused came to the bedroom, he used to allegedly send only his son to sleep in the hall but not the daughter. It was alleged that he would lie down next to his daughter, and like an animal he would feel her private parts while she was asleep. Because she was asleep, she did not realise what was happening to her. It was further alleged that, one day when the accused and his daughter were alone, he had ran over his hand all over the victim’s body and told her that he was merely checking if she had grown properly.

The victim daughter did not realise the accused’s intention and remained silent and since then, he was physically abusing her on various occasions. In March 2012, there appeared a news item in a daily about a father raping his daughter, and this news came to be discussed within victim’s friends' circle in the school. It was then she realised that what her father was doing to her was a serious abuse, and she came home crying and informed it to the Complainant i.e., her mother. Resultantly, a case was registered against the accused father. The Trial Court sentenced him to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment for offence under Sectio 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and one year rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 (TNPWH Act) along with fine. He then approached the Sessions Court but his conviction was upheld, and challenging this, he was before the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, observed, “It appears to be a fair reminder to the consciousness of the court that its conscience should not lose its sense of balance and neutrality and get swayed the way the emotion flows, since the content of the crime is sexual abuse of a daughter by the father. It is understandable. In a society that suffocates under the dense and inescapable layers of toxic public opinion of the uninformed, and at times the motivated, carefully manicured through the social media, the judges may also become an easy victim to believe in the guilt of the accused, when their duty is to presume his innocence.”

The Court said that a Judge's job is not easy as he is a human being after all, and unless he has trained his mind to forewarn himself not to let his conscience to be influenced by his own biases and prejudices, he may fall a victim to anything that may excite his emotions.

“More similar to the untrained human minds. The accused is worried (or is it his counsel?) that this Court may pre-judge the charge against him”, it added.

The Court noted that for a lay person, nothing can be a shocker than the depravity of a father's behaviour towards his daughter and the social outrage will be instantly conveyed.

“Court does not ask the question, 'how on earth an offence can happen?', for it carries a moral overtone. Instead it probes if an offence could have happened the way it is told. It uses observable facts spoken to by the witnesses, scientific facts established through experts and spreads them on a plane coated with ordinary course of human behaviour and logic, to recreate the offence, forewarning all the time that it may neither supply nor supplant its own views of morality, emotional responses and impulses. For, the Court cannot react. It only responds”, it further remarked.

The Court was of the view that the adequacy of a solitary statement of a prosecutrix to fix an accused in cases of sexual offences is essentially limited to cases where the manner of commission of crime leaves no trail to corroborate it and if a man assaults a child or a woman sexually when she is alone, it will be near impossible to secure independent evidence to corroborate it.

“However, where the question is if an offence could have taken place set in the circumstances where the victim was not alone, then the Court cannot ignore other associated facts, which implies that the evidence of the victim will have to be tested if it syncs well with other evidence on material particulars. After all, dynamics of every crime vary. It is hence, the Supreme Court has cautioned that before relying on the solitary statement of the victim, it should be tested for its sterling quality, blemishlessness and durability in logical scrutiny”, it also emphasised.

The Court added that whether to act on the exclusive and uncorroborated testimony of a victim of a sexual crime depends largely on the facts of every case, and the same can even vary with every case.

“… merely because the defence has failed to establish the motive for what it may term as a pre-cooked accusation, it does not imply that the prosecution is relieved of its burden in law to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Prosecution at all times must be fair, and when P.W.1 was on talking terms with the accused till the day previous to the day on which she laid her complaint, it is only appropriate for the IO to ascertain every facts associated therewith, instead of rushing with a final report based on a half-hearted investigation to give the dog a bad name and to hang it”, it observed.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Revisions, set aside the impugned Judgments, and discharge the accused of all the charges.

Cause Title- S. v. The State & Anr.

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate A. Ramesh and Advocate C. Aswin Kumar.

Respondents: Government Advocate C.E. Pratap, Advocates D. Ashok Kumar, and D. Vijay Krishnan.

Click here to read/download the Judgment